View Full Version : An Historic Night For Money in Politics?
Jon Stewart's words, not mine, but is he wrong? The whole "dark money", 501(c)(4) and (6) scam won big. And yes, I think those designations are a scam. I haven't decided if that was the case from the very beginning, but they have certainly been bastardized to the point where there really only seems to be one use for them. I just can't seem to find a silver lining in the way its playing out.
Maybe I'm just miffed at not getting invited to the party in Wichita. And what the heck, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em. I'm off to start my organic gardening social welfare organization. If any of you would like to anonymously funnel $300 million or so my way, send me a PM. Kale in 16!!!
Our state supposedly spent 100 million, probably so much because we had some politically important races. One figure I saw was that between a third and a half were from "outside sources". I don't see a silver lining either. Chard for the masses!
If it was, it was largely a historic night for wasted money.
I don't think it was money that allowed the GOP to run the table so decisively. In many races, the opposition spent as much or more. I think it was in part a referendum on the current administration, as mid-terms so often are, and in part some absolutely atrocious campaigning on the Dem's part.
flowerseverywhere
11-5-14, 2:37pm
I am sad because I want our elected officials to represent their constituents best interests not their donors. Sadly I feel much of this is lost in both parties.
The people have spoken. I am sad we could lose the gains the affordable care act has had, despite how flawed it is. More uninsured cannot be a good thing. I am sad for women. As much as I hate abortion I support a woman's right to choose. I am sad for the lower income working citizens who depend on some social services to make their life a little better. I envision that the income gap will become wider. But I still respect the election process. Many, many citizens did not vote unfortunately regardless of the political ads.
With all the money now in play in elections, you have to wonder if the media is tempted to slant things just to encourage more money be spent by candidates and other sources.
If it was, it was largely a historic night for wasted money.
I don't think it was money that allowed the GOP to run the table so decisively. In many races, the opposition spent as much or more. I think it was in part a referendum on the current administration, as mid-terms so often are, and in part some absolutely atrocious campaigning on the Dem's part.
I do think GOP spending had a lot to do with the scope of the whoopin', but there's really no way to quantify that. Arguably that's the idea that makes dark money important. Anyway, I totally agree about the results being a referendum on the administration. There are still enough bread and circuses out there that I think the really fed up people are still in the minority, but that minority did get up from in front of their TVs for long enough to vote.
I do think GOP spending had a lot to do with the scope of the whoopin', but there's really no way to quantify that. Arguably that's the idea that makes dark money important. Anyway, I totally agree about the results being a referendum on the administration. There are still enough bread and circuses out there that I think the really fed up people are still in the minority, but that minority did get up from in front of their TVs for long enough to vote.
More important this time around were the in-kind contributions so many of the Dem candidates made to various GOP campaigns. How do you put a value on Wendy Davis' wheelchair ad to her opposition? Alison Lundergan Grimes' invoking her constitutional right not to disclose whether she voted for Obama or Romney? Mark Udall's abortion fanaticism? Bruce Braley sneering at an "a farmer from Iowa who never went to law school" while running for an Iowa Senate seat? Joe Biden on anything?
The Koch brothers could bankrupt themselves and not do as much to help the Republicans.
The Koch brothers could bankrupt themselves and not do as much to help the Republicans.That's true, and it reminds me of something that happened here during the run-up to the 2006 2008 General Election. As I recall, one of our moderators (Loosechickens) single handedly converted one of our members (ketchupisavegetable) to the Republican side, quite un-intentionally. Gosh, I miss her.
That's true, and it reminds me of something that happened here during the run-up to the 2006 General Election. As I recall, one of our moderators (Loosechickens) single handedly converted one of our members (ketchupisavegetable) to the Republican side, quite un-intentionally. Gosh, I miss her.
Post electoral nostalgia is common, but not fully covered until you hit your deductible.
I won't argue your point for a second LDAHL. The Dems shot themselves in the foot at every opportunity. They're good at it, but then they've had plenty of practice the past few years. What I don't want to do is take my eye off the ball just because there are inept politicians getting beat. I have real concerns that the unchecked (and uncheckable) volume of money flowing through 'social welfare organizations' could escalate influence peddling to an art form that we've never seen. Any actual evidence is anecdotal at best, more just a gut feeling based on history books.
Cause for optimism:
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2014/11/05/voters-reject-oil-titan-chevron-elect-progressive-bloc-richmond-california
Cause for optimism:
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2014/11/05/voters-reject-oil-titan-chevron-elect-progressive-bloc-richmond-california
Saw that, it was a great outcome.
For another POV
http://online.wsj.com/articles/john-r-lott-and-bradley-a-smith-its-shocking-how-little-was-spent-on-the-midterms-1415405600
It’s Shocking How Little Was Spent on the Midterms
A single private company, Procter & Gamble, spent a third more on advertising—$4.9 billion in 2013.
By JOHN R. LOTT JR. And BRADLEY A. SMITH
Nov. 7, 2014 7:13 p.m. ET
The “most expensive election in history.” Our democracy is being “bought and sold.” This election, “debased by money, shames us all.” These are some of the recent expressions of outrage about what the Center for Responsive Politicsestimates to have been $3.67 billion spent for federal offices during the 2014 midterms.
Two days before the election on “Face the Nation,” CBS’s Bob Schieffer asked viewers to name one item whose costs have gone up as much over time as campaigns. That’s easy. While campaign spending soared to $3.67 billion this year from $1.6 billion in 1998, federal government spending rose 5% faster, to $3.9 trillion from $1.65 trillion.
It is logical that these expenditures have gone up in tandem. The bigger the federal government, the more is at stake, and the harder politicians and special interests fight to see who gets to control it. If the federal government were still the 2% to 3% of GDP that it was a century ago, people likely wouldn’t care as passionately about the outcome of most elections.
It's not about the control of government money as it is about control of our government, period.
Our democracy is at stake. One man, one vote is washed away in the tide of money. The corpocracy continues.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.